Week 24: Special World Cup Edition

A soccer-themed recap and Tükürük köfte

It’s the World Cup! It also happens to be roughly the halfway mark for this Substack journey, so what better time to do a soccer X demography post? (apologies to my non-American friends for continuing to call it soccer, btw)

Before we begin, a request. If you have been reading along, first: congratulations. We are almost halfway through - you made it! Second: Please consider sharing a link to this Substack with your friends and subscribing (if you haven’t done so yet)! I want to keep writing (and keep this free), so it helps to know who is reading, and listening to your feedback.

As we saw in earlier posts, there is a wide range of where countries sit with respect to indicators like U-5 mortality, and life expectancy. We talked about the lottery of birth when comparing Estonia and South Sudan for instance. I marvel at that with respect to soccer, too. I know, I know, many are diaspora players etc, but it makes one think. The health infrastructure that a player grew up in: the childhood nutrition, access to medical care, quality of sports medicine, all shapes the career they are able to have in ways that are invisible. A player from a country with high U-5 mortality who makes it to a World Cup has, statistically, already survived odds that many of their peers did not. The fact that they are here is a selection effect built on demographic inequality.

So far, we have looked at population trajectories

• Size (India and Guyana);

• Timing of peaks (already peaked - China, will peak by mid-century - Iran, and will peak after 2100 - Pakistan)

Drivers of the Demographic Transition

• Total Fertility Rate (South Korea and Somalia);

• Under-5 Mortality (South Sudan, Estonia, Rwanda);

• Maternal Mortality (Sierra Leone, Australia, USA);

• Life Expectancy (Nigeria and Japan)

Age structure and life course

• Age at marriage (Nepal and Spain);

• Median age (Niger and Monaco);

and Spatial dynamics and mobility

• Urbanization (Papua New Guinea and Singapore);

• International Migration (USA and Mexico)

Every single one of these elements reflects something interesting about the World Cup. Did you also look at Cabo Verde’s draw against Spain and think about the population size differential? Did you look at the list of 48 countries and think of glaring omissions from the most populous (India and China)? Did you look at some teams and wonder how many players are foreign-born or second generation? I really hope the answers to some of those are “yes” because that means you are a true nerd and in good company.

Median age and timing of population peaks

Obviously, every player is in their athletic prime and the median age of the squads is between 25 and 32. Still, it’s fun to see exactly how far apart some countries are from their national median age. I got the squad age lists from FIFA to compute their median ages, the national median ages from the UN, and the timing of population peaks from the World Population Prospects. I highlighted each country (red/orange/blue) based on the timing of their population peaks.

A couple of things stand out to me:

• Most countries have median ages (circles) higher than their elite athletes (cross). This makes sense. The ones that do not, include countries that are growing through 2054: Democratic Republic of Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Senegal, Iraq, Ghana, Haiti, Jordan, Egypt, Paraguay, Uzbekistan.

  • These are at the bottom end, and (young) populations are growing due to higher fertility. The teams are an older group compared to their very young populations.

• The Brazil and Argentina squads seem relatively older compared to other favorites - Portugal, Spain etc. Who fills the gap when their productive cohort exits?

• At the top end, there are aging societies like Japan, Portugal, Spain, Germany, Bosnia, South Korea, Croatia, where the teams represent the shrinking subset of young people in their respective countries.

• You will notice that some of the blue countries (the ones growing through 2054) are marked with a star. It’s because those countries: USA, Canada, Australia, France, Netherlands, England, Scotland - would have otherwise plateaued or already entered contraction. That is, were it not for immigration. Migration is the demographic engine keeping their overall population lines moving upward past the mid-century mark. Do you see that on the pitch as well?

The brain drain, but soccer

Low fertility nations that lean on migration are essentially importing demographic vitality. Other countries are benefiting from their diasporas on the pitch.

While we have explored what migration means for the workforce and care economy in earlier pieces in this Substack, another example is for international sports. The domestic leagues, academy infrastructures, and broader economic foundations in the countries denoted by blue stars in the figure, remain young and well funded. This allows them to source talent from all over the world, including from diaspora populations. France’s squad feels like a map of France’s colonial migration history. The West African migration to France that accelerated in the 1960s-1970s (driven by the same push-pull factors we covered in immigration posts), labor demand in France, economic underdevelopment at home, and colonial ties that made France the destination of choice - produced a second and third generation that now plays for the national team. This is demography in the truest sense.

The required criteria for eligibility to play in a specific team are: A player can represent the territory of their birth and also can represent the country of their parents’ birth or the country of their grandparents’ birth if they hold that nationality.

This plays out in the data:

Nearly a quarter of the 1,248 players at this summer’s FIFA World Cup are playing on a national team outside of their birth country. That represents 24% of all players.

That data point is a significant change when it comes to World Cup rosters. At the 2006 World Cup, for example, that figure was less than 9%.

• Forbes (2026)

But it’s not just high-income countries benefiting from this. Consider that the top countries of birth for players are France, Netherlands, England, Germany, and Spain. This leads to fun citations described like this, “A national team made up almost entirely of players born in a different country? A young midfielder from Alaska suiting up for Mexico? A defender from the Kansas City suburbs suiting up for Jordan?”

Source: The New York Times

Emerging nations no longer need to replicate the high-cost academy infrastructures of Europe’s biggest powers like France and Spain to access elite talent. Instead, they can draw upon immigrant populations who developed their soccer skills elsewhere.

Countries such as Morocco, Senegal, Ivory Coast, Algeria and Tunisia have increasingly built teams around players born and developed abroad. Rather than relying solely on domestic talent pipelines, these federations are leveraging migration patterns and dual nationality laws to tap into first-generation players who were born and trained in Europe.

• Forbes (2026)

Morocco is a striking example. Their squad features players born in Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, France, and Canada. Multiple players either cannot, or make the deliberate choice to represent Morocco rather than the country where they were raised. FIFA’s rules, designed with perfectly mundane bureaucratic logic, have created a mechanism by which sending countries can reclaim some of what the brain drain took.

If you are interested in digging into each squad to see their birthplace and/or if they are foreign-born, I found this interactive map very fun to play with. Since I and many readers are US-based, consider this applies to the US also:

Source: Newsweek (2026) - red is 1 player, yellow is 2 players, and blue is 3 players

Fertility and the soccer dividend

Out of the 16 teams that advanced out of the group stages in 2022, 14 were below replacement level fertility (2.1). Elite soccer success in the modern era continues to concentrate heavily in economically advanced, lower-fertility countries with heavily institutionalized academy pipelines (more on that in the next section).

Does that mean that high fertility = bad soccer? Nope. [Btw, aligned with random causality, one of my recent favorite demographic hot stories in the last few weeks has been that cell phones are responsible for lowering fertility. For the best take/response on this, do read Jenn Dowd’s Substack piece here.] So, does this mean that high fertility rates produce bad soccer? No. Does it mean that low fertility rates produce good soccer? Also no.

The countries that tend to dominate the sport are countries that have recently passed through the sweet spot of the demographic transition: fertility has fallen enough that there are fewer children competing for the same resources, which means more investment per child (including in sport development); but the large cohorts born during the high-fertility era are now in prime working and athletic age.

Senegal is a country with a massive youth population, increasingly channeled into an organized soccer development system (that also leans on the diaspora). The potential is extraordinary; the question is whether the infrastructure can keep pace with the talent.

This is where the nuance that we always come back to in this series matters. A high fertility rate and a young population are potential. They are not destiny. Niger has the world’s highest TFR (roughly 6.2) and is not at the World Cup. Chad is not at the World Cup. Mali is not at the World Cup. The youth bulge produces world-class players when it is accompanied by investment, stability, organized youth development, and crucially, the infrastructure that allows talent to be found, trained, and retained. Much like, you guessed it, the demographic dividend.

What sub-Saharan African soccer nations have increasingly been doing is building the pipeline that converts the youth bulge into results. AFCON (the Africa Cup of Nations) has become one of the most competitive tournaments in soccer, and an economic success. African clubs are developing players who are being recruited to European leagues earlier and earlier.

Looking ahead

Since we talked about cell phones and fertility already, let’s throw something else in the mix: does sporting win euphoria cause a spike in births? There is anecdotal evidence aplenty (here from Germany). Some researchers say, nope - the data shows there is a drop in births because people are spending more time watching the games on TV screens and “individuals’ time allocation choices”. Classy.

I found this review of all evidence, and the conclusion is so funny, I have to share in its entirety:

With a few exceptions, major American football, Association football (soccer) and Rugby apex tournaments in Africa, North America, Asia and Europe were associated with increases in the number of babies born and/or in the birth sex ratio 9(±1) months following notable team wins and/or hosting the tournament. Related to this, unexpected losses by teams from a premier soccer league were associated with a decline in births nine months on. The systematic review’s implications span healthcare planning and policy, prompting consideration of major sporting events as birth pattern and sex ratio influencers, which may subsequently influence the demand for midwives, doctors, and healthcare resources.

This underscores societal events’ potential in shaping demographic trends and invites future research to uncover underlying mechanisms and cross-cultural applicability. In light of the evolving scale and scope of major sporting events, such as the upcoming 2026 FIFA World Cup with increased teams and hosts, further research is warranted to provide nuanced estimates and boundaries for the impact on child birth rates, acknowledging the changing dynamics of these tournaments (Beissel & Kohe, 2022). In conclusion, Nelson Mandela was correct when he averred, “Sport has the power to change the world. It has the power to inspire, it has the power to unite people in a way that little else does.” (Nelson Mandela Foundation, 2000).

• Masukume, Grech & Ryan (2024)

One may say then, that the soccer pitch is a lagged indicator of demographic change. The results we see in 2026 reflect the fertility decisions, infrastructure investments, and development choices of twenty to thirty years ago. The results of 2046 are being determined right now, in the number of children being born, the schools being built, and the academies being funded.

I will see myself out.

---

The Food!

We just returned from Vancouver, where thrillingly, we had tickets to the Türkiye vs Australia game. Un-thrillingly, Türkiye lost. Ekim is Turkish, and one of the biggest exports of his culture he has provided our family, particularly Eymir, is a hooligan-level love of soccer. So, you can imagine, we were pretty devastated with the outcome. So to make us all feel better (and eat our feelings?), he made us what he calls Turkish soccer stadium food, Tükürük (loosely translated as “spit”) köfte. Essentially meatballs in a bun with roasted garlic, onions, peppers, and cacik drizzled on top. It was a hug, and everyone was happy.

We aren’t really feeling FIFA 2026 song Dai Dai yet, so sharing our top 2: Waka Waka (Shakira), and La Copa de la Vida (Ricky Martin - and enjoy the video, for obvious reasons).